With the Apple v. Samsung patent trial underway, Apple is making its case that Samsung's phones and tablets are ripoffs of the iPhone and iPad. We’ve had extensive coverage of the testimony from our reporter in the courthouse, and we got our hands on some of the trial exhibits Apple is showing the jury.

As the plaintiff, Apple has steered the direction of the early parts of the trial. We’ll get to hear more from Samsung next week when it makes its defense. In the meantime, let’s look at some of the exhibits Apple has either shown the jury or submitted into the case's official record. These include side-by-side comparisons of Samsung and Apple devices, internal planning documents in which Samsung discusses features that are a bit too similar to the iPhone, and an Apple analysis of user interface features that allegedly violate Apple patents.

Samsung phones, before and after the iPhone

The above graphic requires little explanation. Apple is showing the jury that once the iPhone hit the market, Samsung’s designs started looking progressively more iPhone-like. After the January 2007 announcement of the iPhone, Samsung started pushing out its own touchscreen phones lacking a keyboard, as you can see in the next part of the trial exhibit:

None of the phones Apple shows from 2008 or 2009 could really be mistaken for an iPhone, but the Samsung models start resembling the iPhone a lot more in 2010 and 2011. The evidence Apple presents is in the picture at the top of this article.

Most people familiar with smartphones will see that those Samsung devices aren’t iPhones, since they include the familiar Android buttons at the bottom rather than a single home button. While Apple is showing Samsung products that hit the market after the iPhone launched, Samsung has evidence demonstrating that it was working on similar designs before the iPhone existed. Some of this evidence was ruled inadmissible because it was submitted too late in the legal process. But not all of Samsung's evidence was ruled out, as this exhibit in the case's official record shows:

Samsung tablets, before and after the iPad

Apple has argued that the Galaxy Tab's shape and look is too similar to the iPad to be a simple coincidence. Notably, the exhibit also includes Samsung's 7-inch Galaxy Tab, which is much too small to be confused with an iPad. The iPad has always been of the larger variety, but Apple is rumored to be building its own 7-inch tablet, and the Apple v. Samsung trial has made public more evidence that a 7-inch iPad is indeed in the works.

Samsung app icons "awkward," look like iPhone copies

The mere fact that Samsung phones and tablets are roughly the same size and shape as the iPhone or iPad likely isn't enough to win a big judgment for Apple. But Cupertino has other evidence, including a lengthy internal Samsung evaluation from March 2010 comparing the S1 to the iPhone. The document recommends changes in the user interface to reduce the impression that icon design was copied from iOS.

The Samsung planning document shows a comparison between the iPhone and the Samsung Galaxy S (or GT-I9000). It compares the Samsung device unfavorably to the iPhone, saying the iPhone's application icons are designed to "represent their functionalities" while Samsung's are "awkward" and cause confusion regarding each application's utility. The slide recommends changes to make the Samsung design more appealing, but doesn't specifically instruct Samsung to copy iPhone design techniques.

As you can see, the internal Samsung document presented at trial by Apple says the Samsung phone provides a "strong impression that iPhone's icon concept was copied." The "directions for improvement" are that Samsung designers should "Remove a feeling that iPhone's menu icons are copied by differentiating design."

Samsung phones v. Apple patents

In addition to those internal Samsung documents, Apple has presented its own analysis of how Samsung's user interfaces mimic the iPhone and allegedly infringe Apple patents. For example, this is one of a series of exhibits comparing Samsung devices to Apple's "trade dress" and designs covered in an Apple design patent:

The Apple graphics go on to show a dozen or so Samsung phones, all with nearly identical user interfaces. To demonstrate that there is more than one way to design a touchscreen interface, Apple presented some of the competitors' home screens. These screens are different enough to not violate Apple's IP, in the company's view:

Apple's analysis of how Samsung tablets violate its patent describes at least one feature that anyone who uses a smartphone or tablet probably takes for granted: adjustment of scrolling speed in response to the speed of a user's finger movement. Doing it any other way would seem ridiculous, but Apple says Samsung has violated its patent by scrolling documents at a speed that is "essentially the same as the speed with which the user's finger moves." This graphic actually refers to the same patent covering the list feature, but focuses on a different claim:

The patent, covering 'List scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touchscreen display," was filed for in December 2007 and awarded to Apple in December 2008.

We'll have to assume Samsung will argue this is obvious functionality that should never have been patented in the first place. Samsung strategy officer Justin Denison has already called the notion that Samsung copied Apple designs "offensive"—although Apple lawyers forced him to explain an e-mail he sent to Samsung employees criticizing them for not making user interfaces as attractive as Apple's.

There's a break in the trial today and tomorrow, and testimony will resume Friday. Get your popcorn ready.

600 Reader Comments

I think it's interesting that all but one of the non-touchscreen phones have a display active and none of the touchscreens have theirs active, and that the devices in question (like the Ace and the original Galaxy) are not shown. Also, this is an interesting angle for the Galaxy Ace (spoiler used to reduce size):

That is pretty blatant. Before this case, I had never heard of the Ace. I saw Walmart carries it. Looking in the comments about that phone I found this:

"I have this phone. I love this phone.HOWEVER, AT&T was reluctant to associate it with their network as it DOES NOT come up on their list of acceptable telephones. The AT&T rep and I figured it was because it was a new model.I later learned when I contacted Samsung USA support because of a malfunction: THIS PHONE WAS NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION IN THE UNITED STATES. IT WAS MANUFACTURED FOR USE IN MEXICO, ONLY. (This explains why the default language is Spanish on start up.)"

That would explain why I had never heard of it. Not that this makes the copying any less. I'm wondering, if this phone was made in Asia and sold in Mexico, does it belong in U.S. court? I'm not trying to get them out of this one. I honestly don't know.

Or is it not actually part of this case and just used here as an example of Samsung's copying?

I think the difference is that Apple's designers and engineers have always been inspired by things that exist outside of technology. Jobs' example was fonts. Proportionally spaced fonts on the Macintosh were inspired by beautiful type-settings in books. They didn't invent fonts, or proportional spacing, but they added the feature to the Mac, because they thought it looked beautiful.

Microsoft, on the other hand, added proportionally spaced fonts to Windows and Word, because it was on the Mac. Not because of beautiful books. It's a subtle distinction, but the REASON you do something is as important as what you do and effects the quality of the outcome. It's a bit like two photographers... one inspired and driven by art (drawing and painting) and one inspired by Photoshop.

Except that one of the leads on the Microsoft Word for PC project (started in 1981) was Charles Simonyi, a major developer of the first word processor to use proportional fonts, Bravo.

Steve Jobs had every right to believe what he wanted, but it doesn't make it true.

I think it's interesting that all but one of the non-touchscreen phones have a display active and none of the touchscreens have theirs active, and that the devices in question (like the Ace and the original Galaxy) are not shown. Also, this is an interesting angle for the Galaxy Ace (spoiler used to reduce size):

That is pretty blatant. Before this case, I had never heard of the Ace. I saw Walmart carries it. Looking in the comments about that phone I found this:

"I have this phone. I love this phone.HOWEVER, AT&T was reluctant to associate it with their network as it DOES NOT come up on their list of acceptable telephones. The AT&T rep and I figured it was because it was a new model.I later learned when I contacted Samsung USA support because of a malfunction: THIS PHONE WAS NOT INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION IN THE UNITED STATES. IT WAS MANUFACTURED FOR USE IN MEXICO, ONLY. (This explains why the default language is Spanish on start up.)"

That would explain why I had never heard of it. Not that this makes the copying any less. I'm wondering, if this phone was made in Asia and sold in Mexico, does it belong in U.S. court? I'm not trying to get them out of this one. I honestly don't know.

Or is it not actually part of this case and just used here as an example of Samsung's copying?

That document shows 3 phones with no damages. I'm pretty sure the i9000 and i9100 were international versions. With the comment I found about this being a Mexico phone, maybe they are only considering US profits. Makes sense anyways.

What a waste of time and money this case is. Yeah Samsung copied Apple. Apple have copied plenty of times in the past themselves and both companies will continue to do so. It's the way things are made better. Instead of cocking around trying to win some pointless case they should both plough more money into R&D and create something revolutionary again.

What do you think they aren't? Siri gains 14 more languages in the next 3 months.

Ars - PLEASE do your readership a favor and post an article that summarizes the actual legal standards for infringement of patents, copyrights and trademarks. If you've already done it, please do it again. It is sorely needed.

Ars - PLEASE do your readership a favor and post an article that summarizes the actual legal standards for infringement of patents, copyrights and trademarks. If you've already done it, please do it again. It is sorely needed.

The whole Apple vs Samsung (and Android) battle has been going for far too long. The expenses incurred by all is ridiculous - what a waste. Couldn't they just focus on improving their products and let the customer prove who is better?

Will Samsung sue Apple for its 7" iPad when its released - cuz guess what its going to look like the 7.1 Tab!

Clarification please. There is so much hate going both ways on this that I'm not sure what you are alluding to here. If you mean to imply that Apple copied XEROX then let me remind you that in that case Apple copied something that:

A) Was not in productionB) Was NEVER going to be in production and was actually getting mothballed

Five minutes on Wikipedia would have told you that the Xerox Star project was started directly after the Xerox Alto project concluded, as Xerox intended to commercialise the research it has done. (And the Star, in turn, inspired the icon grid in the Apple Lisa, according to Larry Tessar in a 1983 interrview). And as I've previously written on the subject, Xerox claims that Apple was only licensed to impliment Smalltalk on its Apple II/III devices, and thus obtained the license under false premises.

erikengh wrote:

Apple got a glimpse of the XEROX parc GUI. An hour or so. No tech specs or implementation details. This is very different from say Microsoft which got access to the implementation of Mac OS and got almost a year to study how it worked before making their own. When MS copied the Mac GUI it was a well functioning commercial product that worked.

Quote:

They copied the idea, not the product. What you suggest is that companies should be able to own the right to make cars and computers. What companies should be able to protect is implementation of those products. This differs from MS, which essentially copied the implementation of the Mac OS GUI. By that I don't mean the code, but all the details in how things work together. That is different from copying the idea of having a graphical based interaction.

Wow. That's... that's really something else.

Not only were they working on Windows before they worked with Apple (inspired by - what else - the Xerox Star) but neither the version demoed in 1983 nor the version they released in 1985 'works' like the Macintosh OS, and for what does, the Supreme Court ruled was either unprotectable, essential or common industry practice at the time.

The whole Apple vs Samsung (and Android) battle has been going for far too long. The expenses incurred by all is ridiculous - what a waste. Couldn't they just focus on improving their products and let the customer prove who is better?

Will Samsung sue Apple for its 7" iPad when its released - cuz guess what its going to look like the 7.1 Tab!

No, not if trademark is involved. It's like asking which consumers liked better, Napster or Tower Records.

Stupid analogies aside, the 7" iPad will look like an iPad. Even Samsungs documents concerning the Galaxy Tab said have their product was returned because end users thought they were buying iPads.people mistook Tabs for iPads.

Here you go. I made a mistake, it wasn't returns but misidentification by viewers of the Tab for the iPad.

You dont see Gibson suing other guitar makers for Les Paul clones do you?

Yes you do. You might be surpised to learn there are tons of "Lawsuit Gibsons" out there. Litigation against companies ripping off the IP of other companies has a long tradition in just about every industry there is. Just because you are ignorant of them, doesn't mean they are out of the ordinary, or that this dispute between 2 consumer electronics giants represents some kind of weird trend. The only reason most geeks are paying attention to the Smartphone wars is because it's more about their own techno / religion / ideology than anything else.

All innovation involves some copying, and some of that copying is clearly a fair usage of what inspired it. Other usage is clearly unfair and then there are a whole lot of grey areas in between. In those cases it's the job of the courts to determine where the copying is fair competition and where it isn't fair competition. And I'm all for that, regardless of who wins.

Ars - PLEASE do your readership a favor and post an article that summarizes the actual legal standards for infringement of patents, copyrights and trademarks. If you've already done it, please do it again. It is sorely needed.

Because patent defense is largely subjective, based around the idea of there being a common denominator for consumers except when it comes down to technical specifications.

I don't think Samsung even intends to defend against the technical patents (unless they have a very strong claim to prior art); they're pretty clearly focused on the design patents.

I should add that even lawyers find themselves befuddled by patent decisions, particularly when it comes to design patents. While they're a nice revenue stream for patent lawyers, most lawyers can recognize they're wreaking havoc on our legal system and need to be addressed through actual legislation and not judicial precedents.

I don't think there is much doubt Samsung was aping the look of Apple's products after they were released. I recall several articles on blogs and magazines at the time saying just that. Given the law as it stands Apple may well have grounds to grumble about it.

The problem, isn't Apple, it is the law. Why we have design patents is beyond me. It's not like someone is mistakenly going to buy a product with Samsung livery emblazoned across it's box when they really wanted something from Apple. That is why we have trademarks. Producing something that looked and worked just like Apple for 1/2 the price it is called competition, and it should be encouraged.

They didn't do that of course. Anybody that bought an early Android device expecting it to work as well as an iPhone of a similar vintage was in for a big disappointment. In fact reading that Samsung comparison of iPhone versus the early versions of Android makes me cringe. They were spot on. Early versions of Android sucked. It tells of volumes about the genius of Steve Jobs that Apple got the GUI so right on version 1.

It's all irrelevant now. Google's policy of rapid releases and evolutionary improvement has put them ahead, so now Apple finds itself copying Google - not the other way around. So the case is really about what happened in the past. Which makes this case an even bigger waste of time and resources.

Who's arguing about the law? No-one knows "what the law thinks" regarding this case yet, not even Koh or the jury. That's why this whole circus is needed. ALL of us (bar none) only know our own opinions, and what we hope the outcome will be.

Regardless of the law, someone really would have to be incredibly stupid to believe they were holding an iPhone when in fact they were holding an Ace with "SAMSUNG" printed on the front.

OrangeCream wrote:

Christophorus wrote:

What a waste of time and money this case is. Yeah Samsung copied Apple. Apple have copied plenty of times in the past themselves and both companies will continue to do so. It's the way things are made better. Instead of cocking around trying to win some pointless case they should both plough more money into R&D and create something revolutionary again.

What do you think they aren't? Siri gains 14 more languages in the next 3 months.

That's good, but that has no bearing on the tens of millions of dollars being poured into court, that could otherwise have been spent on better products/experiences. Surely not even a fanboy like yourself could possibly believe that Apple can "max out" their R&D to the point where more money can't help?

darienphoenix wrote:

Janne wrote:

pleasestandby wrote:

They're trying to claim ownerships of a LIST. A fucking LIST!!! Are you kidding me?!?!

I'm constantly amazed how some people manage to boil this case in to something as ludicrous as the example above.

Yeah this sort of shit is getting old.

"A patent on rounded rectangles! What a joke! It's almost as if I have no idea what I'm talking about!"

Love how you assume you know more than anyone who disagrees with you.

What Apple is suing over (I don't have a list for the stuff Samsung is suing over):7,469,381 (19) Scroll "bounce back" (easing)7,844,915 (8) Multi-touch7,864,163 (50) Tap to zoomD 618,677 Outlines of an iPhone, and the colour blackD 593,087 More outlines of an iPhoneD 504.889 Outlines of a generic tablet (NOT the iPad)D 604,385 A black and white image of the iPhone homescreen

What Apple is suing over (I don't have a list for the stuff Samsung is suing over):7,469,381 (19) Scroll "bounce back" (easing)7,844,915 (8) Multi-touch7,864,163 (50) Tap to zoomD 618,677 Outlines of an iPhone, and the colour blackD 593,087 More outlines of an iPhoneD 504.889 Outlines of a generic tablet (NOT the iPad)D 604,385 A black and white image of the iPhone homescreen

You dont see Gibson suing other guitar makers for Les Paul clones do you? Why? Because anyone who cares knows the difference. Because the Les Paul truly IS better than the rest. Thank God Gibson doesnt have the arrogance that Apple has, otherwise we'd here them crying about Washburn copying the double cutout,

You need to read up on guitar history. Gibson DID sue over the single cut design of the Les Paul, only they sued PRS, not Washburn. They lost (on appeal). Because expert witness stated in court that "only an idiot" would confuse the two brands. Read this, http://www.premierguitar.com/Magazine/I ... spx?Page=1

Anyway, guitar makers can patent the headstock shape, which has little bearing on the functionality of the guitar precisely because a guitars form follows it's function. It's the same with phones, Apple just found the best combination of ergonomics and UI up to that point. Remember when phones were getting smaller and smaller? I'm guessing it was a trend driven by advancing technology but it got to a point when some devices were unusable for anyone with large hands. Now that touch screens and internet connectivity has come into play they ballooned in size so people could read the tiny text on shrunken web-sites. There are design limitations that determine how well a phone will work, (just like a guitar, a drum set, a car, damn near everything) if it is to have certain core functions. While a vendor could easily turn a 7inch media player into a phone no one would use it, it's just too damn big. You also won't see too many screens smaller than 3 inches on a smartphone because it's too difficult to see what you would typically want to do.

The real question is not if any copying is involved, it's whether or not people can be easily confused as to which product is which.

Of course! You may shamelessly rip off other designs, but if you change the logo it's A-okay and only an idiot would confuse the two.

That's pretty much how it works in the guitar world. They can copy nearly everything except the headstock design and logo. The industry, the instruments, and the musicians who play them are better off because of this.

Don't see what's so hard to understand about there being laws to discourage unfair competition.

Beardy wrote:

That's pretty much how it works in the guitar world. They can copy nearly everything except the headstock design and logo. The industry, the instruments, and the musicians who play them are better off because of this.

I really wish people would at least do a little bit of googling before making arrogant pronouncements about how IP in the guitar world works, as if they are some kind of expert. All patents are short-lived, and Gibson has a long history of both design and utility patents for guitars going back to the 19th century.

I think this might blow everyone's mind. There is no other way to display apps other then in a grid and with a dock/"taskbar." Windows had this way before iOS. That is just an example. Either you have apps in a grid or in a windows metro style. Can't sue for bottom areas and grids. Who does Apple think they are?

Uh, you'll recall that we were talking about the Sony Walkman, which had no similarity of appearance to the iPod at all.

No, it did not look like an iPod, and Apple had exactly ZERO issues with the appearance of the device. What Sony did was to design a product that followed similar design-guidelines as the iPod did, yet it had a distinct appearance of it's own. So what is your point?

Quote:

On topic: Apple should have sued for the suppression of the Tab and only those handsets with a similar design. However, they wanted to clamp down on Samsung's full catalog of fairly diverse smartphones and tablets, of which there are dozens released every quarter, and this makes their claims more tenuous. But hey, it's a jury trial, so who knows what might happen?

Why would Apple sue Samsung about products that do not look like Apple products?

Uh, you'll recall that we were talking about the Sony Walkman, which had no similarity of appearance to the iPod at all.

No, it did not look like an iPod, and Apple had exactly ZERO issues with the appearance of the device. What Sony did was to design a product that followed similar design-guidelines as the iPod did, yet it had a distinct appearance of it's own. So what is your point?

Quote:

On topic: Apple should have sued for the suppression of the Tab and only those handsets with a similar design. However, they wanted to clamp down on Samsung's full catalog of fairly diverse smartphones and tablets, of which there are dozens released every quarter, and this makes their claims more tenuous. But hey, it's a jury trial, so who knows what might happen?

Why would Apple sue Samsung about products that do not look like Apple products?

Stop with the photoshopped Apple showpieces, please. I made this point elsewhere, that these "side by side" comparisons shrink the Samsung phones to the same height.

Use real side by side photos, not doctored ones:

Looks similar, I agree, but not identical. If you take a side or back view, the differences become more pronounced.

No, it does not look IDENTICAL. That's what those Chinese knock-off manufacturers do, with devices that even have Apple-logos on 'em And Samsung is not one of them. But it would be dumb to claim that the Galaxy is clearly imitating the iPhone.

Samsung says it spends a lot of money on R&D. What a coincidence that all that money has created a very similar image to that of Apple's, in every way.

Borderline trolling? USB connectors looks like USB connectors because they are USB connectors. Did you notice how they are using the same map app from Google?

Samsung just happened to use the same connector (not USB, but the one that looks like iPod dock connector) for connecting to the phone, and the USB-charger just magically happens to look similar? And the map app from Google? Um, the maps app in iPhone is developed by Apple, Samsung just decided to use a screenshot from it in promoting _their_ device.

Of course, the list goes on: a natural shape for a small desktop computer is OF COURSE the shape of Mac mini, right? And circular opening on the bottom to reach the insides is totally natural choice of design.

What a waste of time and money this case is. Yeah Samsung copied Apple. Apple have copied plenty of times in the past themselves and both companies will continue to do so. It's the way things are made better. Instead of cocking around trying to win some pointless case they should both plough more money into R&D and create something revolutionary again.

What do you think they aren't? Siri gains 14 more languages in the next 3 months.

I didn't say they weren't spending money on R&D. I just think that the money wasted on this case could have also been spent on R&D.

I'd much prefer it Apple just called out Samsung in a "We've seen you're copying our stuff. Thanks for the compliment." type of way and just carried on making better devices.

I'd be intrigued to see how Samsung react to an Apple HDTV. There's not much design scope, physically, for those which wouldn't appear to reference a previous design by someone else.

Of course, the list goes on: a natural shape for a small desktop computer is OF COURSE the shape of Mac mini, right? And circular opening on the bottom to reach the insides is totally natural choice of design.

Thats a funny example to use since the Mac Mini was a copy of FlexATX computers first invented in 1999...

Of course, the list goes on: a natural shape for a small desktop computer is OF COURSE the shape of Mac mini, right? And circular opening on the bottom to reach the insides is totally natural choice of design.

Thats a funny example to use since the Mac Mini was a copy of FlexATX computers first invented in 1999...

Apple invented everything, bro....including the Apple itself. Lawsuit against some dude up in the sky pending.

Of course, the list goes on: a natural shape for a small desktop computer is OF COURSE the shape of Mac mini, right? And circular opening on the bottom to reach the insides is totally natural choice of design.

Thats a funny example to use since the Mac Mini was a copy of FlexATX computers first invented in 1999...

Of course there were mini-computers before Mac mini. Here's a typical flexATX-case:

Do you have an example of a mini-computer that Apple copied with the Mac mini?

Via was pushing mini-ITX quite hard as well. And no-one is claiming that Mac mini was the first miniature computer. What I was claiming is that Samsungs Chromebox is an obvious copy of the current Mac mini. Not only is the outside-appearance similar, it also has a similar way of accessing the internal components. Even if you made the claim that the outside-shape and appearance of the computer is "obvious" (it's funny how things become "obvious" after Apple releases a product...), the way you access the internal is not.

So make it a green icon, but maybe make the receiver facing outward so you see the ear and mouthpieces directly. Did it have to be at the exact same angle and everything as the iPhone icon? Did they HAVE to have a picture of flowers to symbolize the Photos icon? I don't believe anyone else was using a similar icon before the iPhone was released. This list continues.

And why on earth Apple is allowed to copy all other phone manufactures "idea" of a Green Phone, but Samsung cannot do so? In my eyes, Apple copied Nokia's green button. OK, Nokia, sue them